We had a curiously synchonous pair of cases in point last week, when two liberal commetators – Mark Shields <\/a>and Dana Milbank <\/a>– called for a return of the draft.<\/p>\n Blind As A Liberal<\/strong>: \u00a0Let’s dispense with Shields first.<\/p>\n He notes the nobility of service – and how usual it used to be to find the children of the ruling elites serving in the military:<\/p>\n Americans are disconnected from each other and nowhere is this disconnect more alarming and more obvious than between those in the U.S. military and their civilian contemporaries. In spite of all the “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers on SUVs and the unvarying mantra of how “proud” all our public officials, irrespective of party, are of “our brave men and women in uniform,” the American upper class is happy to have all fighting and, yes, all dying done not by its own, precious children but instead by the sons and daughters of waitresses, secretaries and firefighters…<\/span>Lyndon Johnson was the last president to have a son — or in his case, two sons-in-law — serve, both in wartime. Franklin Roosevelt had four sons. All went to war. Elliott Roosevelt enlisted in the Army Air Corps and flew 300 combat missions. Jimmy Roosevelt joined the Marine Corps, and in combat in the Pacific, earned both the Navy Cross and the Silver Star. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Franklin Roosevelt Jr.’s bravery saving the lives of crew members when under heavy enemy fire was rewarded with a Silver Star. And Navy Lt. John Roosevelt earned a Bronze Star during World War II.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n All very true.<\/p>\n Of course, in 2008 the children of both of the candidates on one ticket were serving in the military. \u00a0 John McCain and Sarah Palin both had children on active duty. \u00a0I don’t recall Shields going especially out of his way to note that particular virtue about either of them during that race. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It’s a\u00a0selective\u00a0<\/em>virtue, I guess…<\/p>\n Motivation<\/strong>:\u00a0 Of course, the draft is the last thing the military wants – because outside of a few very narrowly-defined circumstances, draftee militaries aren’t as effective as volunteer militaries.<\/p>\n Those circumstances, of course, are “when your homeland is in immediate, grave peril”.\u00a0 History is full of examples of draftee militaries that fought brilliantly in defending their homes; Israel’s “national service” military, sure but also\u00a0the USSR (albeit at gruesome cost), even the Germans, who held off the Allied onslaught much longer than might have been.\u00a0 The world is also full of draftee militaries that present their would-be opponents with harsh deterrents to aggression; Switzerland, South Korea, Finland, even Cold (heh) War-era Norway.\u00a0\u00a0 Because while not everyone intrinsicaly wants <\/em>to be a soldier, pretty much nobody wants their home to be conquered by the Nazis, the North Koreans, the Soviets or the Syrians.<\/p>\n History also presents us examples of draftee armies that grossly underperformed outside those circumstances; it’s a simple fact of human nature that soldiers who don’t volunteer to fight, and have no real skin in the game fight-wise, are a lot mess motivated to risk life and limb than people who signed up for the job.\u00a0\u00a0 We’ve talked about this in the past<\/a>.<\/p>\n So the military – least of all the Army – wants nothing to do with a draft.<\/p>\n Other Motivations<\/strong>:\u00a0 But it’s not about fighting wars for the likes of Milbank.\u00a0 To him (and Fields, whose commentary is similar to Milbank’s; too <\/em>similar), it’s about the good ol’ days:<\/p>\n As I make my rounds each day in the capital, chronicling our leaders\u2019 plentiful foibles, failings, screw-ups, inanities, outrages and overall dysfunction, I\u2019m often asked if there\u2019s anything that could clean up the mess.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anyone who asks Dana Milbank for solutions to this nation’s problems should have their drivers’ license revoked.\u00a0 But I digress.<\/p>\n My usual answer is a shrug and an admission that there\u2019s no silver bullet. There are many possibilities \u2014 campaign spending limits, term limits, nonpartisan primaries, nonpartisan redistricting, a third party \u2014 but most aren\u2019t politically or legally feasible, might not make much of a difference or, as with Harry Reid\u2019s rewriting of Senate rules, have the potential to make things even worse.<\/p>\n But one change, over time, could reverse the problems that have built up over the past few decades: We should mandate military service for all Americans, men and women alike, when they turn 18. The idea is radical, unlikely and impractical \u2014 but it just might work.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And why is that?<\/p>\n A Congressional Quarterly count of the current Congress finds that just 86 of the 435 members of the House are veterans, as are only 17 of 100 senators, which puts the overall rate at 19 percent. This is the lowest percentage of veterans in Congress since World War II, down from a high of 77\u2009percent in 1977-78, according to the American Legion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There might be a point in there.\u00a0 But after a brief digression, we’ll see that it’s not Milbank’s.<\/p>\n …And Statistics:\u00a0 <\/strong>Just as a brief aside, here’s one of the best illustrations of an element of basic logic that liberals – even “elites” like Milbank – routinely bastardize:<\/p>\n With that in m ind, Milbank continues (with emphasis added by yours truly):<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/imgs.xkcd.com\/comics\/correlation.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n